Three out of the nineteen states challenging the constitutionality of the laws that established the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission have informed the Supreme Court of their intention to withdraw from the suit.
Anambra (9th plaintiff), Adamawa (16th plaintiff), and Ebonyi (18th plaintiff) separately submitted applications for withdrawal before the Court.
The Attorney General of Anambra State, Professor Sylvia Ifemeje, informed the court that she wishes to withdraw from the suit, having filed a motion for withdrawal on October 20.
Similarly, the Attorney General of Ebonyi State, Ikenna Nwidagu, stated, “My Lord, I filed a notice of withdrawal dated and filed on October 21. My Lords, we pray this honourable Court strikes out the name of the 18th plaintiff.”
The Attorney General of Adamawa State, Afraimu Jingi, remarked, “My Lord, I have filed a notice of withdrawal of the suit dated October 14. I am praying this Court to allow me to withdraw from the suit.”
Unanimously, the seven-member panel of the Supreme Court presiding over the matter granted their request and struck out their names from the suit, following the non-opposition from the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi, to their withdrawal.
With their withdrawal, the states remaining in the suit are Kogi, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Jigawa, Oyo, Benue, Enugu, Plateau, Cross River, Ondo, Niger, Edo, Bauchi, Taraba, and Imo.
Meanwhile, the Attorney General of Osun State, represented by Oluwole Jimi-Bada, informed the court that he had filed a motion to be consolidated into the suit.
The counsel for Kogi State, Abdulwahab Mohammed (SAN), the 1st plaintiff, urged the court to grant all their reliefs. He asserted that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission was not well founded, stressing that the commission is a product of convention.
“The crux of our suit is the decision of this Court. The counsel that represented the appellant in that suit, by the rules of this Court, Order 4, will be called to address this Court. He participated in the bill that birthed the EFCC and ICPC together.
“Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN) informed this Court that it was the UN Convention that reduced this into law. Section 12—this provision was never followed.
“This fact was not an issue in the case of AG Ondo vs. AG Federation. There is a specific provision for bringing a convention in. You cannot merely discuss Items 7 or 8.
“We are also challenging the foundation of those laws that created NIFU, EFCC, etc., in order to avoid creating a constitutional crisis.
“There is a specific provision for bringing a convention in. We have also made the case, my Lord, that we are challenging them because they are a product of a convention.
“They are not well founded and should be discounted. It was never intended to be a law applicable throughout the country. It was made to protect our resources from being taken out of this country. We pray your Lordship to allow this suit and award substantial costs in favour of the plaintiffs on record.”
The Attorney General of the Federation (the defendant), in his response, urged the apex court not to deviate from the previous judgment it delivered on the same matter that was brought before it, stressing that the court must strike out the suit in its entirety.
He stated, “I adopt and rely on my processes and urge your Lordship to strike out the plaintiffs’ originating summons.
“With respect to the case of Joseph Nwobike, Nwobike’s case, whether in action or inaction, has no relevance in this case.
“The UN Convention may have expired, but we did not enact this law because the UN Convention required us to. Section 15, subsection 5, states that the state must abolish all corrupt practices and abuses of power. There is no indication that your Lordship should deviate from what you have already stated. This suit should be struck out from its stems, branches, and roots. I urge your Lordship to dismiss the suit.
“The implication, your Lordship, if you grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs, is that the public will perceive the Supreme Court as supporting corruption.”
After the parties presented their arguments, Justice Awani Aji announced that the suit would be reserved for judgment, with a date to be communicated to the parties.
Nasarawa and Ogun States, which had separate requests, were also joined in the general suit.
Nineteen state governments had come together to contest the constitutionality of the laws establishing the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission in the country.
While Nasarawa and Ogun specifically challenged the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit’s cash withdrawal limit guidelines.
The state governments, in their suit, argued that the Supreme Court, in Dr. Joseph Nwobike vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria, had held that it was a United Nations Convention against corruption that was incorporated into the EFCC Establishment Act, and that in enacting this law in 2004, the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, were not followed.
They contended that in bringing a convention into Nigerian law, the provisions of Section 12 must be complied with.
According to the plaintiffs, the provisions of the Constitution necessitated that the majority of the states’ Houses of Assembly agree to incorporate the convention before passing the EFCC Act and others, which was allegedly never done.
The argument of the states in their present suit, which had reportedly been corroborated by the Supreme Court in the previously mentioned case, is that the law, as enacted, could not be applied to states that had not approved it under the provisions of the Nigerian Constitution.
Hence, they argued that any institution formed under these laws should be regarded as illegal.
